Perception of Inpatient Oncologic Rehabilitation in Children, Adolescents and Young Adults Diagnosed with Cancer in Switzerland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inpatient rehabilitation improves physical and psychosocial performance in childhood cancer patients and their families. Two kinds of inpatient rehabilitation are available in specialized institutions in Germany: family-oriented rehabilitation or peer group-oriented rehabilitation for adolescents and young adults (AYA). Our study aimed to find out what Swiss childhood and AYA cancer patients and their families thought about the rehabilitation programs in which they had participated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study of Swiss childhood and AYA cancer patients and their families whose inpatient rehabilitation stays were scheduled to take place in Germany between May 2012 and March 2019. We analyzed the data descriptively and present our findings in accordance with the STROBE statement. RESULTS: Of the 57 eligible families contacted, 38 (67%) responded. Most rated the rehabilitation stay as very good (68%) or good (26%). Nearly all participants emphasized that these programs should be available to all affected patients and their families. Most (80%) thought the program gave them enough valuable information to enable them to cope with daily life after the stay ended. Only one fifth (19%) of the rehabilitation stays were fully funded by the health or disability insurance. CONCLUSION: Participants expressed an overwhelmingly positive opinion about the rehabilitation programs they attended. We are convinced that childhood and AYA cancer patients and their families in Switzerland benefit from these programs and encourage insurances to cover the costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".